English Plus. ERIC Digest.

This Digest is a joint publication of the ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and
Linguistics and the National Clearinghouse on Literacy Education, 1118 22nd
Street NW, Washington, DC 20037, (202) 429-9292.

At the time of Independence, America was populated by speakers of many
languages, including English, German, Spanish, French, Dutch, and Russian, as
well as hundreds of American Indian languages. When the founding fathers decided
not to declare an official language, their reasons included "a belief in
tolerance for linguistic diversity within the population, the economic and
social value of foreign language knowledge and citizenry, and a desire not to
restrict the linguistic and cultural freedom of those living in the new country"
(Judd, 1987, p. 15). Though the issue of an official language has surfaced
periodically throughout the United States' history, the issue was not raised in
Congress until 1981, when Senator S.I. Hayakawa of California introduced a
constitutional amendment to make English the official language of the United
States. At first, the idea seemed to be primarily a symbolic gesture, giving
English, the de facto language of the country, official status. Actually, the
proposed amendment went further, calling for prohibition of state laws,
ordinances, orders, programs, and policies that require the use of other
languages. Neither the Federal government nor any state government could require
any program, policy, or document that would use a language other than English.

Concern over the implications such an amendment could have for U.S. citizens
and residents whose native language is other than English led to the formation
of an "English Plus" language advocacy coalition of more than 50 civil rights
and educational organizations. In 1987, the coalition established the English
Plus Information Clearinghouse (EPIC) under the sponsorship of the Joint
National Committee on Languages and the National Immigration, Refugee, and
Citizenship Forum. EPIC's purpose is to fulfill the need for centralized
information on language rights and language policy, to respond to efforts to
restrict the use of languages other than English, and to promote an alternative
to Official English.

WHAT IS ENGLISH PLUS?

The English Plus movement is based on
the belief that all U.S. residents should have the opportunity to become
proficient in English PLUS one or more other languages. For nonnative speakers
of English, this means the opportunity to acquire proficiency in English and to
maintain proficiency in their native language(s). For native English speakers,
this means the opportunity to become proficient in a language other than English
while continuing to develop their English proficiency.

Proponents of English Plus view cultural diversity as a national strength and
believe that it provides the United States with a "unique reservoir of
understanding and talent" (EPIC, 1992, p.152). They support access to bilingual
services and education and believe that such services will not in any way
discourage language minority groups from learning English. In fact, evidence
suggests that immigrant groups are very motivated to learn English. In a survey
of 2,817 Americans of Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban descent, more than 90% of
the respondents said they believed U.S. citizens and residents should learn
English (Duke, 1992). Lack of opportunity, not lack of motivation, is the
primary barrier to acquiring English proficiency. Ricento (1988) observed that,
in Los Angeles alone, "40,000 prospective ESL students were turned away because
there were not enough classes to accommodate them" (p. 4).

English Plus supports legislative measures designed to provide linguistic
assistance to Americans who are not fluent in English. These include, for
example, interpreter services in emergency situations such as 911; multilingual
medical services; bilingual education and employment training; and multilingual
drivers license exams. On the federal level, these include the bilingual
provisions of the Voting Rights Act and the Court Interpreters Act. State
provisions may also call for language services in civil courts and at migrant
health and substance abuse centers. "National unity and our constitutional
values require that language assistance be made available in order to ensure
equal access to essential services, education, the electoral process, and other
rights and opportunities guaranteed to all members of society" (EPIC, 1992,
p.151).

WHAT IS OFFICIAL ENGLISH?

The Official English movement
seeks to make English the official language of the United States through passage
of a constitutional amendment. Official English supporters argue that "in a
pluralistic nation such as ours, government should foster the similarities that
unite us, rather than the differences that separate us" (Wright, 1992, p. 129)
and "unless we become serious about protecting our heritage as a unilingual
society'bound by a common language'we may lose a precious resource that has
helped us forge a national character and identity from so many diverse elements" (Chavez, 1987, p. 11). It is feared that providing education or services in
other languages will give rise to ethnic separatism and lead to the breakdown of
national unity, and that the only means of preventing such a rift is to adopt
English as the official language.

The movement is spearheaded by two groups, English First, founded by Larry
Pratt of Virginia, and U.S. English, founded by the late Senator Hayakawa and
John Tanton, a Michigan ophthalmologist. U.S. English, the better known of the
two groups, boasts over 400,000 members and has an annual operating budget of $6
million. The group has helped state efforts to pass official English laws and
has fought FCC licensing of Spanish language broadcasters.

The goals of the Official English movement are to encourage the process to
ratify a constitutional amendment making English the official language of the
United States; to repeal bilingual voting requirements; to reduce funding for
bilingual education; to enforce English language and civics requirements for
naturalization; and to expand opportunities for learning English (U.S. English,
1992).

Although English Plus supporters are in full agreement that proficiency in
English is indispensable in American society and that opportunities must be
provided for all U.S. residents to learn English, they do not believe that an
English Language Amendment will accomplish these goals. English is, already, the
de facto language of the United States and needs no law to protect or promote
its use. English Plus supporters argue that official English laws are
counterproductive; they do not provide increased opportunities to acquire
proficiency in English, but they do restrict the rights and access to essential
services of individuals who are not yet English-proficient.

BILINGUAL BALLOTS

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 eliminated
literacy requirements for voting because they were seen as a form of
discrimination against Blacks in the South. In 1975, to eliminate discrimination
based on language proficiency, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees added
the provision of election materials in languages other than English in
jurisdictions where at least 5% of the population is American Indian, Asian
American, Native Alaskan, or of Spanish heritage. English Plus advocates
maintain that "the right to vote is fundamental because it provides a means to
preserve all other rights" (Trasvina, 1992, p. 263). Voting materials are
written at levels as high as college English, whereas only about a third grade
level of literacy is needed to pass the literacy test for naturalization. Many
native born Americans, such as some American Indians and Hispanics in the
Southwest, especially the elderly who were taught little English in school, may
be unable to cast an informed vote in English.

Official English proponents argue that, in any event, people cannot cast an
informed vote without knowing English. They fear that allowing non-English
speakers to vote makes them prey to bloc voting by special interest groups. They
argue that bilingual ballots are contradictory to citizenship laws, which
require fluency in English, and inhibit the learning of English (Bikales, 1986).

BILINGUAL EDUCATION

Bilingual education programs use both
the student's native language and English for instruction. In support of these
programs, English Plus advocates cite research that emphasizes the positive
influence native language development has on second language proficiency. The
lack of first language development has been shown, in some cases, to inhibit the
level of second language proficiency and cognitive academic development (Hakuta,
1990).

Krashen (1992) suggests that successful bilingual education programs actually
result in faster acquisition of English. Content matter taught in the native
language can be transferred to the second language. In the regular classroom,
confronted with both concepts and language that are not comprehensible to them,
limited English speakers learn neither the content nor the language. Research
indicates that language acquisition occurs only when incoming messages can be
understood (Krashen, 1992).

Official English proponents, on the other hand, believe bilingual education
programs advocate maintenance of native languages and cultures at the expense of
English and encourage children not to learn English or become part of American
society. They suggest that by teaching students English as quickly as possible,
schools "make it clear to immigrant parents and children alike that mastery of
English is indispensable for one's becoming a full member of American society"
(English Language Amendment, 1984).

WHAT IS THE STATUS OF OFFICIAL ENGLISH AND ENGLISH PLUS LEGISLATION?

The Official English movement has gained considerable
attention over the past decade, but little success has been achieved at the
Federal level. Sixteen different amendments to the constitution have been
introduced since 1981. Although the Senate convened hearings on Official English
in 1984 and the House did so in 1988, the English Language Amendment has never
come to a Congressional vote.

Sixteen states, however, have either constitutional amendments or statutes
making English the official language. States with amendments include Alabama,
California, Colorado, Florida, and Nebraska; those with statutes include
Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina,
North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Hawaii has passed an
amendment declaring English and Hawaiian as official languages.

The English Plus movement has provided a means for advancing policies that
support linguistic pluralism on the state and local levels. For example, New
Mexico has adopted a resolution declaring that proficiency in more than one
language is beneficial to the nation, that English needs no official legislation
to support it, and that proficiency in other languages should be encouraged (New
Mexico Legislature, 1992). Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington have also passed
English Plus resolutions. Counties and municipalities that have endorsed English
Plus include Atlanta, GA; Cleveland, OH; Dallas and San Antonio, TX; Globe,
Hayden, Miami, Pima, South Tucson, Superior, and Tucson, AZ; Adams County,
Boulder County, and Pueblo, CO; and Washington, DC.

REFERENCES & RESOURCES

Bikales, G. (1986). Comment: The other side. "The International Journal of
the Sociology of Language, 60: Language Rights and the English Language
Amendment," 77-85.

Chavez, L. (1987, December 4). "English: Our common bond." A speech presented
to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council.

Crawford, J., (1992). "Hold your tongue. Bilingualism and the politics of
English only." New York: Addison-Wesley.

Krashen, S. (1992). Sink-or-swim "success stories" and bilingual education.
In J. Crawford (Ed.), "Language loyalties: A source book on the official English
controversy." Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

New Mexico Legislature. (1992). English plus legislation. In J. Crawford
(Ed.), "Language loyalties: A source book on the official English controversy."
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ricento, T. (1988). The framers knew best. "TESOL Newsletter, 22"(2).

Trasvina, J. (1992). Bilingual ballots: Their history and a look forward. In
J. Crawford (Ed.), "Language loyalties: A source book on the official English
controversy." Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

U.S. English. (1992). In defense of our common language. In J. Crawford
(Ed.), "Language loyalties: A source book on the official English controversy."
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wright, G. (1992). U.S. English. In J. Crawford (Ed.), "Language loyalties: A
source book on the official English controversy." Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Please note that this site is privately owned and is in no way related
to any Federal agency or ERIC unit. Further, this site is using a
privately owned and located server. This is NOT a government sponsored
or government sanctioned site. ERIC is a Service Mark of the U.S. Government.
This site exists to provide the text of the public domain ERIC Documents
previously produced by ERIC. No new content will ever appear here
that would in any way challenge the ERIC Service Mark of the U.S. Government.